Investigating the speed-accuracy trade-off: Better use deadlines or response signals?
Investigating the speed-accuracy trade-off: Better use deadlines or response signals?
复制标题
DOI：
10.3758/s13428-012-0303-0
复制
发表时间：
2013-09-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Huebner, Ronald
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dambacher, Michael;Huebner, Ronald
截止日期 (DL) 和响应信号 (RS) 是用于研究速度精度权衡 (SAT) 的两种行之有效的技术。然而，方法上的差异意味着相应的数据不一定反映相同的过程。具体来说，DL 程序授予有关试验特定时间要求的知识，并要求在预先指定的时间段过去之前做出响应。相比之下，RS 间隔在试验之间经常会发生不可预测的变化，并且必须在明确的信号后给出响应。在这里，我们研究了这些差异在侧翼任务中的影响。虽然所有条件都产生了稳健的 SAT 函数，但与 DL 条件（实验 1-3，被阻止）相比，曲线右移表明 RS 条件（实验 1，被阻止；实验 2 和 3，随机）的性能下降，这表明 RS 的检测提出了额外的任务要求。此外，在RS设置中，侧卫效应在很长的时间间隔内消失，这表明当决策在信号之前完成时，刺激相关的效应被吸收在松弛中。反过来，固定工资（实验 2）与绩效挂钩付款（实验 3）的效果表明，DL 方法对响应策略的敏感性高于 RS 方法。最后，RS 过程导致了广泛的缓慢响应和高精度，而 DL 条件导致较高数据范围的变化较小（实验 1 和 2）；然而，对于按绩效付费（实验 3），数据范围变得相似。总之，结果揭示了与手术相关的特征效应，应有助于选择适当的技术。
Deadlines (DLs) and response signals (RSs) are two well-established techniques for investigating speed-accuracy trade-offs (SATs). Methodological differences imply, however, that corresponding data do not necessarily reflect equivalent processes. Specifically, the DL procedure grants knowledge about trial-specific time demands and requires responses before a prespecified period has elapsed. In contrast, RS intervals often vary unpredictably between trials, and responses must be given after an explicit signal. Here, we investigated the effects of these differences in a flanker task. While all conditions yielded robust SAT functions, a right-shift of the curves pointed to reduced performance in RS conditions (Experiment 1, blocked; Experiments 2 and 3, randomized), as compared with DL conditions (Experiments 1-3, blocked), indicating that the detection of the RS imposes additional task demands. Moreover, the flanker effect vanished at long intervals in RS settings, suggesting that stimulus-related effects are absorbed in a slack when decisions are completed prior to the signal. In turn, effects of a flat (Experiment 2) versus a performance-contingent payment (Experiment 3) indicated that susceptibility to response strategies is higher in the DL than in the RS method. Finally, the RS procedure led to a broad range of slow responses and high accuracies, whereas DL conditions resulted in smaller variations in the upper data range (Experiments 1 and 2); with performance-contingent payment (Experiment 3), though, data ranges became similar. Together, the results uncover characteristic procedure-related effects and should help in selection of the appropriate technique.